Talk:Fauci (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fauci (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: Documentary / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Propaganda

This film is Propaganda and the reviews (by the people) show that they understand that. 96.19.203.17 (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I've given your section a title heading of 'Propaganda') - I understand that this is something you care deeply about, but you must understand that - in order for it to be included on Wikipedia - you must include a reliable source to support such claims. It's no good simply saying that user reviews prove something (user reviews can be easily astroturfed). {{u|Abillionradios}} {Static} 03:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I've requested semi-protection as the additions by numerous IP addresses are simply unsourced. That isn't to necessarily discredit what they are wanting to contribute, of course, just that on contentious subjects it stands to reason we should make more of an effort to cite reliable sources. {{u|Abillionradios}} {Static} 03:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add something nuanced about the rotten tomato business

Is there a source to prove an (organised?) campaign against the film? We need to judge due weight for the audience score; WJDLI won’t do. Springnuts (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following this morning's disruptive editing I have restored the audience score, which fell out of the article. Springnuts (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2% discrepancy should be noted, you're correct and I appreciate you bringing it up. I'll search tomorrow and see what I can find. {{u|Abillionradios}} {Static} 14:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search (not super deep, but enough) for a non-political source that referenced the chasm between the critics' reviews and user reviews. Mainstream news hasn't really picked up on it. It is, however, a well-hashed topic on conservative sites/Twitter/Reddit. Is there an established consensus on how to deal with obvious review bombing? Kinda difficult, though, without a reliable source picking up on it. {{u|Abillionradios}} {Static} 03:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! There is a consensus: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Audience_reception. It should be removed because of vote stacking. There we go. {{u|Abillionradios}} {Static} 04:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to address the vote stacking on the Rotten Tomatoes in the article then go right ahead, but don't mute the audience reaction altogether. The fact that this article has not a shed of light on the subject of people shunning this film is its own form of biased framing. Remember neutrality is important. Just because you don't like the negative score doesn't mean it should not be made aware or discussed. Stop deleting the audience's reaction. Uziel Grey (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audience views are important and more important than critics 137.110.37.125 (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film critics are knowledgeable when it comes to filmmaking; audience reviews are unreliable as they are susceptible to vote stacking. Isi96 (talk) 06:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isi96 should stop editing this page unless they vote here and we come to consensus of how to proceed in a neutral manner ~~Isi96 (talk) 06:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Isi96~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4360:3A00:11ED:8C1:9BB8:23CF (talk) [reply]

Per MOS:FILM, audience polls from reliable sources such as CinemaScore and PostTrak are allowed, but audience reviews from sites such as Metacritic, IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes are not allowed as they are user-generated and susceptible to manipulation. If there are reliable sources mentioning the audience reception, those can be added. Isi96 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a neutral point of view means not giving undue weight, as that can create a false balance. Isi96 (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous news sources that comment on the discrepancy between audience and critic scores. There could potentially be some additional content explaining why different sources view this differently (e.g., some view as spam/review bombing from people who did not watch the film, whereas others view as a discrepancy between critic opinions and views of average audiences). Added this to the article with several relevant citations. DirkDouse (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content needs to be sourced to reliable sources. The 3 sources you added were not reliable though, as Fox News is not considered generally reliable for political topics per WP:RSP and the other two sources look to be unreliable sources as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article are sufficient to support this claim. E.g., from the list of reliable sources, Washington Examiner -- "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims." This is not an "exceptional claim. DirkDouse Also "There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science" and "There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science." The statement that news outlets commented on the discrepancy is hardly a political claim. "As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece" (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using poor quality sources to support a contentious claim is not appropriate in my view. Please stop restoring contested content and instead gain consensus for your changes on the talk page as required by WP:ONUS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a consensus by basically everyone except you that this should be discussed in some capacity, and those sources are not low quality, and certainly aren't low quality in this context. DirkDouse (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I will tag a few other users on this thread who can comment if they want to Isi96 Uziel Grey User:Abillionradios DirkDouse (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the article and seeing a few problems, they all seem to be related to the above discussion. At the end of the Reception section it says The film’s audience reception is unknown this is at least partially incorrect or outdated, the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is known (2%) and so is the IMDB score (6.2[1]) but we do not normally include user voted web polls because they are WP:USERGENERATED and not WP:Reliable sources. Rotten Tomatoes believe their audience score has been distorted by vote-stacking this claim is not supported by any reliable sources (and Rotten Tomatoes is not a person, they do not believe anything), the reference to the Tennessee Star newspaper dated (September 2021) does not mention this claim at all, it does mention that the IMDB score at the time was 2.2 out of 10. It seems very strange to point out that CinemaScore has not published a score for this film, it is weird for an encyclopaedia to talk about things that did not happen (but if CinemaScore did survey this you can expect that the scores would have been highly positive because selection bias). Can we even say for sure that Cinemascore surveyed this film? Again the reference to the Tennessee Star does not say anything about CinemaScore, it only emphasizes how little information was available at the time that article was published. Normally I would simply delete such a badly sourced and unreliable statements outright but since I can see it was already contentious I'm going to tag it as Citation needed and give editors another chance to properly source it first. There are rare exceptions where Audience scores are repeatedly mentioned by WP:SECONDARY sources and an argument can be made for including them, but this does not look like one of those times. -- 109.76.139.121 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the content should be removed. However, looking afterward, this could be a good source for mentioning the practice of review bombing that happened here and for other films that have politically-related elements. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing it, and saving me waiting a few days. It was contentious so I was going to give it a chance, and reinforce earlier arguments but the discussion from December did not result in people adding better sources either. That article from Vice about review bombing does mention this Fauci film,[2] so that would be enough to support the statement that there was review bombing, but it does not do enough to show that any of it is actually worth mentioning in this article about the film. The Reception section already covers the bigger issue that the documentary is "laudatory but lenient" but it should not come as a any surprise that this film was preaching to the converted. People bring their own politics to this film and perhaps more could be said about that, there may be more worthwhile critical analysis that would be worth including (perhaps from political sources, or academics, not just film critics) but I am not convinced that trying to find an excuse to include the audience scores would do anything to actually improve this article. (Again anyone else reading should see WP:UGC and WP:RS which this discussion will by necessity circle back around to the same points over and over again.) -- 109.76.139.121 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I had a go at revising the Reception section. I have slightly shortened the extracts from positive reviews and added a couple of short extracts from negative ones, aiming to get balance. Ref the RT audience score, it has not been published due to concerns about vote stacking - it's hard to argue that this has not happened, so although "occasional exceptions may apply" to the MOS, and even though we may suspect that the audience view is actually out of step with the 'professional' reviewers' view I don't think we can quote it. We can note that RT have suppressed the figure - and why - and the absence of Box Office figures - but imo we cannot draw any conclusions from those things unless there are RS etc - we all know the score. Friendly regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a WP:Reliable source that actually supports the statement that there were concerns about vote stacking. The existing reference to the Tennessee Star says no such thing. No one needs to "argue that this has not happened", editors need to WP:VERIFY that it did happen. -- 109.76.139.121 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable critics

This documentary simply was not that widely reviewed with only 41 reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes, so personally I think it is reasonable to include some less well known minor film critics. Jordan Ruimy, Pradeep Menon, and Tony Medley are such less well known critics, but all three are actually Rotten Tomatoes approved critics, for whatever that is worth.[3] (It would probably be better to look again at the most reputable critics and see what parts of the film they did not like, because even the most positive reviews are rarely without at least one or two negative points of criticism. But that would take considerably more effort.)

Other editors may disagree, so I'm pre-emptively starting a discussion to raise the issue just in case people have different opinions about including these minor critics or about how much weight to give to the minority of negative reviews, when the Rotten Tomatoes score was 85% overall. -- 109.79.172.39 (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW in my recent editing I attempted to balance the positive/negative in an 85:15 ratio, purely on word-count. Springnuts (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balance/weight can be tricky, we can always adjust things later. Including negative points from otherwise positive reviews from the most reputable critics would be better than adding any more of these less well known critics.

My comment was primarily in response to a different editor removing a review without providing any explanation.[4] There might be a justifiable reason to remove a less well known critic, but it requires at least an explanation, and preferably discussion. -- 109.78.192.128 (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fauci Unmasked

Should this be linked to other biopics / info about Fauci e.g. Fauci Unmasked: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt18866538/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.31.26 (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed would be suitable for a see also section if there were other media about Fauci that had a Wikipedia article Indagate (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of Critical Reception

It makes no sense to label the reviews as "overly positive" and to talk about a concensus whilst ignoring that only 2% of the audience gave a positive review. This avenue needs to be explored more. --129.215.208.110 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:UGC and WP:RS for more information about why Wikipedia does not use web polls as sources. -- 109.79.163.199 (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]